Talk:DirecTV/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

433954582?

What's this at the top of the article

ok its just been taken off thx

D2 Card pictures

The pictures that we're labled "D2" card are wrong. They were actually of the D1 card (blue with silver stripes). I have replaced it with the *real* D2 card (directv logo with "rethink tv" under it).

kthnx

How many subscribers are there really?

In the summary, the article states DirecTV has 50 million customers, yet there is a table further down in the article that shows the progression of the number of US subscribers. Which is correct? And does this actually mean that there are more non-US subscribers than US subscribers?


100% locals... I think not.

Since there are citations needed and on DBSTalk.com, Earl Bonovich =, who has contacts inside D*, says that he hasn't heard anything of the sort, I'm going to go ahead and delete it. Any objections? 68.155.81.86 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

H.264 support

The article currently says:

All DirecTV-delivered local stations (outside of the NYC and LA network stations) are encoded in MPEG-4. The HR10-250 will be not be able to receive DirecTV-delivered local stations in these markets but can still receive over-the-air ATSC broadcasts in these markets.

But I think this is wrong. I receive local stations in the San Francisco Bay market on an HR10-250, so the first sentence must be wrong. The second sentence uses future tense for the first half and present tense for the second half, so that's at least messed up. Does anyone know the actual facts about DirecTV's plans to transition to H.264? Oh, yeah, the article should probably use H.264 throughout rather than MPEG-4 because H.264 is more specific and no non-H.264 flavors of MPEG-4 will be used by DirecTV as far as I know. I suggest using H.264 rather than "MPEG-4 Part 10" or "AVC" solely on the basis that the H.264/MPEG-4_AVC article uses H.264 first. 72.18.225.169 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HIGH DEFINITION LOCALS. You receive Standard Defintion locals on your HR10-250.

Okay, but that isn't what the page originally said in that sentence. I corrected it to read "all DirecTV-delivered local HDTV stations".72.18.225.169 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OTARD and the FCC

Something needs to be said abnout OTARD and the FCC. Lower income people in the inner city may not recieve quality television at a reasonable price!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.218.157 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW Customer Service

The article states that: Customer Service DirecTV goes through N.E.W. for their customer service.

This isn't 100% true. The company owns & operates 5 call centers, and has contract call centers across the country with several providers (of which I don't believe NEW is one of them). This needs to be cited, updated or removed altogether. 147.21.16.3 23:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)bmy

N.E.W. is the company behind the Protection Plan that DTV offers and handles overflow calls from DTV's actual call centers also. 66.232.198.213 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

N.E.W. Does not handle just overflow it covers all things from Billing, Sales, Techsupport and Tech Scheduling. Trust me I worked at the NEW in Klamath Falls.66.233.204.134 (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Signal hacked???

According to this article "Although the DirectTV signal has been broken[citation needed], the hack remains in mainly private hands and has thus far not been widely released to the public, mainly due to the difficulty and high cost of the hack." While there is certainly the issue of legality of revealing and techniques (obviously Wikipedia does not want to provide directions for tampering with access cards, there's the legitimate issue of whether or not this is the case. There's no citation. Can anyone provide some kind of sourcing or verification of the signal and security state of DirecTV? Otherwise this is just hearsay DrBuzz0 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OTA HD stations

The language "The new STB's support the ATSC standard (for over-the-air broadcasts) and also include QAM Tuner" is incorrect. The new H21 base model HD tuner does NOT include an ATSC tuner according to DirecTV. This may be changed in the future, or it may be here to stay (requiring that customers pay for local channels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinjiin (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian of the Year

Perhaps it's worthy to make some mention of DIRECTV's philanthropy? They recieved a "Humanitarian of the Year" Award from CADCA earlier this year (see http://cadca.org/CoalitionResources/PressReleases/CADCA_DFK_Dinner_Release_FINAL.pdf), and seem to have a lot of programs judging by this page on their corp website (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4310192). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.21.16.3 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

About the company?

Article makes no mention of the location of the headquarters, how long the company has been there, and how many people it employees... Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.30.76 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not writing it again

I wrote a long thing based on www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976126/posts and then it hit a spam blacklist and it didn't tell me what I wrote and when I hit the back button it lost the entire thing I wrote. William Ortiz (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HD Downsampling / "HD-Lite"

Since the change of DIRECTV's programming to the MPEG4 compression rate and the use of the 5 LNB dishes with the 103 and 99 degree satellites DIRECTV has claimed to have not been broadcasting in 1280x1080i but in full 1080i or 720p depending on what is received from the broadcasters. Someone had kept placing information into the page referrencing an article regarding their usage of HD-Lite in the past as if it were current but the article's most recent update was from 08/09/2005. When the poster's IP address was traced back it went to a Comcast Corporate range of IP's. Surprise, surprise. Due to all the changes regarding DIRECTV's lineup and their claims that they use true 1080i or 720p in recent customer service calls I decided to remove those referrences until someone can verify through signal testing that all of DIRECTV's HD channels are downsampled when broadcasting 1080i. (147.21.160.5 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Why does Turd Bird Redirect to DirecTV?

I don't get why the word Turd Bird redirects to this article. Anyone care to chime in where this fits in? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

slimline3 is already released, not will be

-currently directv is installing dishes which include 18" single lnb, tripple sat, kaku slimline5, and kaku slimline3. also there is a new variation of the limline lnb's which are called swm/5 and swm/3 both use the same slimline dish but use 1 voltage supply from a dedicated source and is capable of running on RG-59 cable. this removes the need to run DVR models with Dual cable runs, and also the need to use B-band converters on highdef models. -the H23 highdef model also has a built in B-band converter mechanism. -new 1080p support is available on HR22 and R22 models after software update. TV must be capable of supporting 1080p and be connected via HDMI cable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracozny (talk • contribs) 07:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct Founded in 1990

[1]

From their website. They only began providing service in 1994. I'm going to Correct this. I doubt there is any controversy over this one. I just wanted to make a note of this.Satyer (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


why was there no mention of gm's Hughes electronics as original owner of Directv. the company was a subsidiary of Hughes electronics which was a subsidiary of gm. then was sold to fox/news corp who sold a portion to liberty media. at this time Hughes was split to Hughes communication and direct tv group.

within 1990 to 1994 directv was under the name Hughes brand. after 1994 it was known as directv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.46.230 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

General Information needs attention

This section is in need of a current and factual re-write. Sore Bluto 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly a summary of technical and service information, so it was jumping into how things are done without explaining what is done. I started a more informational section at the top. I'm sure there is more "General" information which can be added, and some of the rest might belong in a section about the equipment. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The Receivers section is now the one needing attention. The technical info which Sore Bluto was referring to has migrated into the similarly technical Receivers section. The Disputed tag in that section was actually Bluto's accuracy tag, which a bot replaced. So all that technical info needs sources provided. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
info about HD resolution would be good. They got sued for downgrading to 1280x1080, 8.25mbps in 2007 and now they're at full 1080p with unknown mbps for some ppv movies. And then there is the picture comparison survey comcast did--68.126.28.93 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section

I think the original research tag is inappropriate for this section. All of the information on it is directly from DirecTV's own site (are you claiming the nation's biggest satellite TV provider's site isn't notable now too?) Another tag such as {{tone}} may be more appropriate. What do you suggest, since you're the one challenging it? TomCat4680 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYNTH. Taking sources, even reliable ones, and putting them together to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources is original research. You want to push the point that they made a promise and then didn't follow through on it. That's obvious. What isn't obvious is that anybody else has cared enough for the issue to appear in a reliable source. --Onorem♠Dil 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay what how do you suggest we fix this? Do you have any ideas? We could A. change the section's name; B. change the tag (because I still don't see how its original research). or C. re-write the section from a more neutral point of view. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
A. The section's name should change as it is not NPOV, and there is no source calling this a controversy, but that doesn't fix the OR. B. Did you read WP:SYNTH? How do you not see how this is OR? C. The section appears fairly neutral...other than its title, but still needs sources that explicitly comment on the overall issue. --Onorem♠Dil 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read synth and you're right. But it IS neutral and well sourced. So what do you suggest the section title be changed to? I think something like "Alleged Premium Channel Bias" would be more appropriate, since DirecTV and Starz / Encore ARE both owned by Liberty Media, that IS a provable fact. Agree? TomCat4680 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to prove anything. We should only report on what other sources have already proven. Where is a reference that mentions any bias? --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Its all there in black and white. Its provable that Liberty Media owns DirecTV, Encore and Starz; CBS Corp owns Showtime package, and Time Warner owns HBO and Cinemax. Why do we need a source to prove something that's already true? This is why I think WP:OR is a paradox. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth...and not everything that's true needs to be in an article. It also needs to be notable. If not one reliable source has decided that this is worth talking about, we shouldn't feel the need to cover it either. --Onorem♠Dil 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to watch.. News Corp. (Fox) may return to venture with DirecTV

CaribDigita (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Free jnstallation service

In the customer service section should there be something mentioning the propensity of dissatisfaction, frustration, and illusiveness of DirecTV responsibility that is involved when being enrolled in the free installation program? The horror/nightmare stories are floating all over the internet and now that I've been rolled into it all I would think that some place like wikipedia should make the dangers known. Points that I would put in after some dialog: DirecTV does not ask if you would decline free service for a "custom service", the free service contractors install the hardware as they please and will instantly reschedule or charge if their proprietary equipment is not sent along with DirecTV hardware, contractors and subcontractors make the web of communication unnavigable when trying to speak to any party about any concern, liability for damages is often brushed off to another part in the contractor/franchise distributor/whoever network for consideration where it is often ignored, and possibly any other point. I would like to discuss this before augmenting the article any further, thank you.

Wikipedia articles and talk pages are not forums for complaints made against any entity. When complaints become a matter of law, such as when a lawsuit has been brought, or some sort of action is made against the company, then it becomes news, and only then does it become noteworthy and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. A great example of this is the FTC coming down on DirecTV for telemarketing violations. If you have a beef with any aspect of DirecTV, I urge you to take it up with them. You could also consider reaching out to the Better Business Bureau, or any of the sundry consumer-oriented websites available.

If nobody says or does anything about this issue within a couple of days, I will probably remove the statement about bait-and-switch.TheBigZzz (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DirecTV coverage of local channels

The main public television station in Washington DC is WETA. With the advent of HD, WETA split it's programming into 4 channels - regular, non-HD WETA (it's old programming), a new HD channel, a kids channel and a creativity channel.

DirecTV has only carried one WETA channel. Until late July, 2009, they carried non-HD programming during the day, and HD programming at night. They made a change at that point, and now only carry the HD WETA channel. Washington DC area DirecTV subscribers are unable to get most of the good daytime programming - because it's not available in HD yet. A lot of children's programming is unavailable as well.

The cable companies in the area do carry all four WETA channels. If you live close enough to WETA (in Virginia), you can get all four channels through the airwaves. But everyone else is stuck.

My package with DirecTV says I receive local channels - but now I don't receive most of my public television station. I have liked their service very much until this point. DirecTV does not seem interested in adding more WETA channels. I wonder if other markets have been successful in dealing with this issue, or if this situation is unique to the Washington DC area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --151.200.239.70 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)151.200.239.70 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Take this question to a forum like High Def Forums - DirecTV board, Satellite Guys DirecTV Forum, or DBSTalk DirecTV Programming & Services Forum. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions, thanks, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.96.129 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

versus

As of late Aug. 31, 2009, Directv dropped Versus. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-versus-directv1-2009sep01,0,6857260.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid35 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I already have a section about it with that article. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marketing Message

Is it really necessary to list all 30 or so actors who have played in DirecTV commercials? In fact, is DirecTV's advertising really worth talking about at all? TheBigZzz (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they seem to work, and many of them are quite entertaining. I don't see anyone posting Dish Network's low budget infomercial-esqe advertisements on Youtube. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they certainly do work. My point was that we generally don't talk about the ad campaigns of other companies in articles here, and I'm not sure that marketing qualifies as encyclopedic unless it's especially noteworthy. A noteworthy ad would probably be one that causes controversy. Only one of DirecTV's ads caused any controversy; it was the one recreating Tommy Boy. TheBigZzz (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Epix

I think the recent addition of the Epix topic under Carriage controversies is potentially misleading and may not be important enough to warrant a subheading or even inclusion in the article.

  1. One might infer from the added text "Although DirecTV explained its refusal by saying of premium movie channels: 'We think there are enough of them out there already, we don't see the value of adding another movie channel', they added 9 of them on June 23, 2010" that these two events — the DirecTV "refusal explanation" and the addition of nine movie channels — occurred at the same time; when in fact the "refusal explanation" occurred (August 6, 2009) nine months prior to the annoucement of the added channels (April 20, 2010). Business changes frequently and DirecTV may have simply changed their mind in the intervening nine months about whether it made sense to add movie channels.
  2. DirectTV did not "refuse" to carry Epix; the exact quote from the statement made by interim CEO Larry Hunter is "That's another one [Epix] that I don't think you'll be seeing us being interested in". It's not like there were crowds of people begging them to carry Epix and the refused. A better characterization might be they "declined" to carry Epix.
  3. Given Epix is a subheading of Carriage controversies — what is the controversy, really? DirecTV simply passed on Epix. So what? One can infer from Hunter's quote above there may have been other channels DirecTV decided to decline to carry. Are we going to have a new subheading here every time DirecTV declines to carry a channel?
  4. Of the nine new movie channels DirecTV added on June 23, 2010, they are all high definition channels of existing brands already carried by DirecTV (e.g., HBO, STARZ, Showtime). I don't believe any of them are new brands, like Epix would have been.

I recommend the added text on Epix be removed. --hulmem (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reponse:

  1. I clarified that they were 9 months apart.
  2. I re-worded it to say they declined.
  3. The controversy is that fact they they said "we don't see the value of adding another movie channel" (NOT service as you suggest), but then went and added 9 premium channels later, contradicting their own statement.
  4. That's partially true but they technically did add new channels that weren't available at all before to those services: HBO Zone, Showtime Next, Showtime Women, Showtime Beyond, Starz Cinema and TMC Xtra. However, they said they weren't interested in new channels (they never said service as you suggest). So why'd they do a 180 and add all of these?

The information should be kept. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see any published source characterizing this as a carriage controversy. Your facts have simply pointed out there is a contradiction between two events displaced in time by nine months. Your conclusion that this is controversial appears to me to be original research.
Notwithstanding the above, I know you've done a lot of work keeping this article free of vandalism and dubious edits and appreciate your efforts. —hulmem (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pro:Idiom

The reference to Pro:Idiom in the local TV section might be wrong. I am no expert but according to this source Pro:Idiom can be used with cable equipment. Not just DirecTV. "...DirecTV is also one of the few companies that can provide true HD into hotels (Pro:Idiom) without the use of a STB (set top box). Cable companies can not provide an HD signal to a hotel room without using the STBs." From my understanding, Pro:Idiom decodes a encrypted stream at the hotel headend and subsequently is then re-encrypted to be sent to the Pro:Idiom capable TV's in the hotel/hospital. Then again that whole line should be placed in a different section all together. Its out of place with the rest of the section.--robertunes (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge The DirecTV Group into this article. Helmandsare (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose that The DirecTV Group should be merged into DirecTV. Whereas before DirecTV Group was the parent company of the DirecTV service, that hasn't been the case in over three years. Since 2008, DirecTV has been the parent company of both DirecTV's satellite service and various networks; The DirecTV Group now only exists as a shell subsidiary of DirecTV. As such, it seems fairly pointless to have a whole separate article dedicated to it; all of the history discussed in the DirecTV Group article (which is the only thing that article covers) is now in the DirecTV article's history section. –Helmandsare (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support per nominator. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lap Giraffe

Links here. Not entirely sure how its relevant to this page.--24.22.167.13 (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a series of DirecTV ads featuring a man who had one. [2] [3] TomCat4680 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Receivers" section needs work.

Since March 2009, the "Receivers" section has been tagged for needing additional references or sources, and because its factual accuracy has been disputed. I decided to bring this up since I did not see any past discussions about this. --Jesant13 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sattelite launch pad image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DF-SC-99-00061.jpeg --Craigboy (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fox

Is it true DirecTV is losing Fox?--24.10.182.89 (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No they're NOT dropping Fox owned and operated over the air broadcast stations (or any other Fox affiliated local stations) or Fox News Channel but they MIGHT drop FX, National Geographic Channel, Speed, Fuel TV, Fox Soccer, Fox Soccer Plus, Fox Movie Channel, Fox Deportes and the 19 Fox Sports Net channels on November 1, 2011 if a new carriage agreement isn't reached by that date. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hughes Electronics

How come Hughes Electronics Corporation does have a wikipedia page? Direct TV and Hughes Electronics are totally separate. There are encyclopedias that just talk about Hughes Electronics. It gives a clear and better understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.153 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DirecTV is now DIRECTV

DirecTV is now styled DIRECTV. Should this page be renamed and the text globally changed to reflect this? Rpt0 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't write product names in all caps, it is a violation of WP:MOSTM #3: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". TomCat4680 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Viacom dispute

Could someone shed some light on the nature of this dispute? DIRECTV is making some pretty strong claims without presenting any technical details to their subscribers. Just how / why are Viacom's new terms unfair? Isn't it possible that Viacom networks are juggling a lot of original series, and need additional funding to expand or meet growing demands? Furthermore, how does it make sense to remove Viacom networks from DIRECTV's roster, just to illustrate a point? That seems like a slap in the face to DIRECTV's subscribers, who presumably won't be credited a discount on their monthly bills.

Regardless of who's the bad guy here, it would be nice to have some actual data. 98.86.98.87 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that because this is an ongoing negotiation, it is difficult to come by facts that do not originate from the parties of the negotiation. Even some of the news articles I've read merely quote or restate the positions of the two parties. So I doubt if there is any "actual data" that can be verified. Having said that, it is possible that both DirecTV and Viacom claims are correct. Viacom didn't say DirecTV's "$1 billion" is false; only that it is "misleading". If you do the math, 20 million DirecTV subscribers X 2 cents per day X 365 days per year = $146 million per year. If the agreement is for 7 years, that's a little over $1 billion. So from an order of magnitude perspective both DirecTV and Viacom are correct. Regarding whether the or not Viacom's terms are fair or unfair, both parties are corporations merely trying to maximize their profit. Viacom is trying to maximize their revenue by increasing revenue from DirecTV; DirecTV is trying to minimize their costs by minimizing the price they are paying Viacom, and in the process minimizing pressure to increase subscriber prices to help cover the increased cost. Disclosure: I am a DirecTV subscriber with no other interest in DirecTV, and I have no interest in Viacom other than I like to watch some of their channels (although I could live without them). -- hulmem (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

the wiki is using viacom advertising regarding the pennies a day statement. it needs to be reworded as it does not look like a quote but a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.26.137 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The quotation is in quotation marks in accordance with WP:QUOTE, but I will change the surrounding text to try to make it more clear. I'm not sure I would characterize the "pennies a day" statement as "advertising"; I don't think that statement is going to induce anyone to watch Viacom content. See my reply to the post above. -- hulmem (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hacking

[Added "Hacking" heading as this topic is not associated with the Viacom dispute] hulmem (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

eliminated hacking The statement below is wrong. People were still hacking HU cards for years after that. Not sure about these new p4/5 DirecTV was initially a victim of an active signal piracy underground for many years, but essentially eliminated hacking of their services in an event now known as 'Black Sunday', which took place one week before Super Bowl Sunday in 2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.147.188 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

DirecTV Latin America has been ruined by these criminals Argentinian "grupo clarín"

Unfortunately DirecTV Latin America has been ruined by these criminals Argentinian "grupo clarín". I mean, being Argentine, unfortunately for me, although I currently live in the U.S. for my fortune, and I am an American citizen, having definitively renounced citizenship "Argentina" (thankfully), yet I have relatives there and travel often to see them, so I'm up to date with what's going on there. So I can say with full knowledge of cause: the Argentinians are generally believed some mediocre, unreliable, always looking to take advantage trickery. That said, and back to the topic of my presentation, the group of criminals "clarin" Argentine DirectTV Latin America has managed, at least for the southern cone, at will, the proof is all channels "junk" Argentines, who in a more than other Latin countries are on the grid DirectTV Latin like these channels trash Argentines (PLEASE DO NOT SEE, THERE only see ARGENTINOS cocky thinking himself much when are nothing): Channel 13 and Channel 13 INTERNATIONAL, TELEFE INTERNATIONAL , TN, CANAL26, TV NEWS, C5N , RURAL CANAL, UTILISIMA, GOURMET, SPACE, I-SAT MAGAZINE, QUIERO MUSICA MI IDIOMA (TELEHIT took to put that crap), INFINITO, FILMS ARTS, VENUS, FOX SPORTS, TYC SPORTS, ESPN + ESPN INTERNATIONAL (some programs), SPORTS DIRECT (all these with the daubs and ridiculous pseudo-Argentine journalists). I do not understand as in other Latin American countries (except Argentina), can tolerate such rubbish channels, and endure the antics of Argentines (especially the locals), where they will see only autoalabarse and say and act much mediocrity and vanity . Should, each in his country, ask your local operator DirecTV to remove all those channels are garbage Argentine name, so take place to put more international channels "as people" by clear over these blatant Argentine "clarion "They say they have no place to put channels, because they have all junk channels on the grid. REMEMBER, CHANNELS GARBAGE Argentine SHOULD BE REMOVED FOR LATIN AMERICA: CHANNEL 13 CHANNEL 13 INTERNATIONAL TELEFE INTERNATIONAL, TN, CRONICA TV, C5N, (IN URUGUAY), CANAL RURAL, UTILISIMA, GOURMET, SPACE, I-SAT INFINITO, FILM AND ARTS, VENUS, QUIERO MUSICA MI IDIOMA , TYC SPORTS, ESPN +

And should have local versions (not "JOURNALISTS" ARGENTINE ") the following channels ESPN, FOX SPORTS, ESPN INTERNATIONAL, SPEED, DIRECTV SPORTS, NBA TV

my name is Sergio Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.197.58 (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

weather channel

Please bring back the weather channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.42.20 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

DirecTV (stylized as DIRECTV)

There is precedent for clarifying the styling of a company name in the lead section of the article (examples are Pixar, Impact Wrestling, Subway (restaurant), and many others) where in parenthesis after the company name in the lead is the phrase "stylized as xxxxx" to show that the company uses specific capitalization in its self-identification. I would like to propose the same be done in the DirecTV article. FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a full time employee of DIRECTV in the digital marketing group and am making this request on behalf of DIRECTV.

I would like to propose starting the lead paragraph with: "DirecTV (stylized as DIRECTV) is an American..." Eddiemercado (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

List of DirecTV Channels

There used to be a list of channels available on Wikipedia showing DirecTV's channels, but due to Wikipedia's policies, it's since been removed. As I think this information is relevant to readers, I've posted a link to a Wiki with a listing of DirecTV's channels; however, the list could do with some updating, if anyone here is able to contribute. Wyp (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Criticism of DirecTV be merged into this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Because a standalone criticism article is a POV fork. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and just redirected it; it was essentially a list of every channel offering change. And yes, "criticism only" articles are not usually compliant with WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DirecTV/Archive_2&oldid=1083501879"